Li v Nzme Publishing Limited - [2025] NZHC 2986

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-000897

[2025] NZHC 2986

BETWEEN
JIAMING LI

Appellant

AND

NZME PUBLISHING LIMITED

First Respondent

YU HONGMING
Second Respondent

JIANG CHAOYANG
Third Respondent

JIANG ZHUO

Fourth Respondent

Hearing: 8 October 2025

Appearances:

Appellant in person

J Edwards and JO Renner for First Respondent

Judgment:

13 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Monday, 13 October 2025 at 2 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Russell McVeagh, Auckland. Copy to: Appellant.

LI v NZME PUBLISHING LTD [2025] NZHC 2986 [13 October 2025]

The appeal

[1] The New Zealand Herald1 published, online, three articles about Mr Li. Mr Li applied to the District Court for relief under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015.2 That Court dismissed the application.

[2]Mr Li appeals.3 He remains self-represented.

Background

[3]The background is best introduced by summarising the articles.

Article 1, published 26 February 2023: “Canada suitcase murder: Convicted killer Leo Li enters NZ with fake name, fighting to stay on as refugee”

[4] Mr Li met Amanda Zhao, the victim, while at university in Canada. In October 2002, Ms Zhao went missing. She and Mr Li were then living together. Mr Li told (Canadian) police Ms Zhao went shopping and never came home. Ms Zhao’s body was found later that month, in a suitcase, nearby.

[5] Mr Li returned to China. After extensive diplomacy, he was arrested for, charged with, and convicted of, murder. In 2014, Mr Li’s conviction was reduced to manslaughter. His life sentence was replaced with a term of seven years’ imprisonment.

[6] In December 2020, Mr Li and his family moved to Auckland. Mr Li claimed to be a refugee. He said his name was Zongyuan Li, and that he had a clean (police) record. Mr Li’s refugee claim was unsuccessful. An Immigration and Protection Officer considered Mr Li had “not been forthcoming in his documents and statements”; that he had “presented different identities”; and Mr Li was “accustomed to … deception”.

1      The New Zealand Herald is owned by the first respondent, NZME Publishing Ltd.
2      The Act.
3      An appeal in this context is a rehearing, but Mr Li must demonstrate error or persuade this Court to a different conclusion from that below. See Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar [2007] NZSC 103, [2008] 2 NZLR 141.

[7] Mr Li was interviewed by the journalist who wrote the article, Lincoln Tan. Mr Li acknowledged being convicted and sentenced in relation to Ms Zhao’s death, but said, “It was a political set-up by the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] to get me into trouble, I believe Amanda could still be alive and walking around somewhere”. Mr Li said he was persecuted by the Chinese government because of his support for Tibet’s independence; he moved to Tibet in 2008 and there joined pro-democracy protests. Mr Li said the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Li v Nzme Publishing Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 2986
Decision Date: 13 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Li v NZME Publishing Limited was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The appellant, Jiaming Li, sought relief under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 against the New Zealand Herald, published by NZME Publishing Limited, and three other respondents, regarding three articles published online about Mr. Li. The District Court had dismissed Mr. Li's application, and he appealed this decision. The legal issues in the case centered on whether the articles breached the principles outlined in the Act, specifically if they contained false allegations, and if the publication of these articles caused harm to Mr. Li. The Court examined the articles' content, Mr. Li's consent to the interview, and the absence of harassment or incitement to harm. The Court also considered Mr. Li's procedural arguments and his claim of harm without a breach of the Act's principles.

The Court found that the District Court Judge was correct in dismissing Mr. Li's application. The procedural argument regarding the handling of the application without a hearing was rejected as the Act allows for such a mode of determination. Mr. Li's claim that the articles were false was dismissed as he failed to provide evidence substantiating his claims of falsity. The Court highlighted that the burden of proof lay with Mr. Li to demonstrate the articles' inaccuracy, rather than on the respondents to prove their accuracy. Additionally, the Court noted that the articles, while containing sensitive information, were based on public records and Mr. Li's own statements, thus aligning with the Act's intent to protect against harmful communications without infringing on legitimate journalism. Although Mr. Li presented evidence of personal harm, the Court concluded that harm alone, without a breach of the Act's principles, does not warrant relief under the Act.

The Court dismissed Mr. Li's appeal, agreeing with the District Court's assessment that there was no serious breach of the Act's principles. Costs were awarded to NZME Publishing Limited, with the Court ordering Mr. Li to pay 2B scale costs, limited to one counsel, due to the success of the respondent and the costs incurred in defending the appeal.

Orders